Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/January 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This Military history WikiProject page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest.

If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the main project discussion page.
Military history
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
 → Discussion archives
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Requests talk
 → New articles talk
Article showcase
Portals
Guidelines
Naming conventions
Notability
Article structure
Content and style
Infobox templates
 → Military conflict infobox talk
 → Campaignboxes talk
 → Military person infobox talk
 → Military unit infobox talk
 → Weapon infobox talk
 → Military structure infobox talk
 → Military test site infobox talk
 → Military cemetery infobox talk
 → Military memorial infobox talk
 → Military award infobox talk
Categories
Featured article advice
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Members talk
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Automation talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Outreach talk
 → Peer review talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
 → Archives talk
 → Articles talk
Meetup planning talk
Task forces
African military history talk
American Civil War talk
Ancient Near Eastern warfare talk
Australian military history talk
Balkan military history talk
British military history talk
Canadian military history talk
Chinese military history talk
Classical warfare talk
Dutch military history talk
Early Modern warfare talk
French military history talk
German military history talk
Indian military history talk
Italian military history talk
Japanese military history talk
Korean military history talk
Maritime warfare talk
Medieval warfare talk
Military aviation talk
Military historiography talk
Military memorials and cemeteries talk
Military science talk
Military technology and engineering talk
Napoleonic Era talk
New Zealand military history talk
Polish military history talk
Russian and Soviet military history talk
United States military history talk
Weaponry talk
World War I talk
World War II talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Overview

The project coordinators will be generally responsible for maintaining the procedural and administrative aspects of the project. They will be the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues and will be responsible for ensuring that the project as a whole is properly informed of them.

To provide some examples of coordinator duties: the coordinators will manage the proposal and creation of new task forces; ensure that project announcement and task lists are kept up-to-date; keep track of new articles; initiate drafting of guidelines needed by the project; organize the category system; oversee the recruitment of new members, including the use of project notices and other advertising methods; create and maintain collaborative projects, such as a potential "Collaboration of the week" within the project; maintain the project page and the various guidelines in it in a clean and easy-to-use state; monitor technical policies and ensure that project templates satisfy them.

They are also expected to generally assist project members with any questions or concerns.

The coordinator positions will not entail any executive power.

[edit] Positions

  • Lead Coordinator (one open position): will have overall responsibility for procedural and administrative matters within the project.
  • Assistant Coordinator (two open positions): will assist the Lead Coordinator by focusing on specific areas within the project that require special attention. These areas will be selected based on need and interest among the coordinators.

[edit] Election Process

  • The election process will run for two weeks, starting on January 23 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on February 5.
  • Any member of the project may nominate themselves for either position by creating a new section under "Nominations" below and copying the sample form below. Nominees only interested in one position should indicate this when adding their names. Candidates need not make extensive statements if they do not wish to do so.
  • The elections will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support a nominee for either position. If the nominee is running for both positions and you wish to support them for only one, please make a note to that effect as part of your vote.
  • Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.

[edit] Sample nomination

[edit] Example

Example (talk • contribs) • Interested in Assistant position only.

Brief statement here

[edit] Support

[edit] Comments and questions

[edit] Nominations

Current time is 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guapovia

Guapovia (talk • contribs) • Interested in lead position, am willing to serve as assistant if more capable editors are elected. WITHDRAWN

Oberiko has made an excellent point in regards to qualifications for coordinatorship. I now see a specific role my talents and interests can aid the Military History WikiProject, and so I've decided to withdraw my candidacy for Coordinatorship. I maintain my votes and support for Loopy and Kirill, and hope to work with them successfully. Should a Military Aviation task force be formed, I would be like to be a part of that. Thank you all for the vote and the comments, most especially Oberiko's. Guapovia 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC) :)

I'd like to help improve the Military History WikiProject. I believe that the WikiProjects should work more closely together, to paint a more comprehensive picture or history. I know that I don't have as long a history at Wikipedia as some of the more famous editors, but I can offer my 'blood, sweat, toil and tears' - with apologies for stealing Mr. Churchill's lines. Anyway, many members here are probably very good at self-motivation. Those who aren't sure what needs to be done could be put into a task force - such as (for example) People, Events, or Technology, given a few practice simple assignments. Some type of Military History Project Award could be created as a form of positive reinforcement. A barn star, perhaps - although that's more of a general Wiki award. We should also check to see how active all the members of MH are. A site map of the MH WikiProject would also be a great help to make the project more transparent.

I am at your service to answer any and all comments and questions with regards to my candidacy. Upon further consideration, I would like to clarify that I am interested in being Lead Coordinator. I am willing to serve as Assistant if the consensus is that other, more experienced editors would be a better choice for lead. And, of course, should my candidacy fail, I'll still be here.

One thing missing in Military History is Military Aviation. It belongs with the technology, and there are good people in WikiProject: Aircraft who could probably be brought on board to help with this.

Cheers, Guapovia

[edit] Support

  1. If we have one assistent coordinator for each of the three arms, I am willing to support you as an assistent for the air force. TeunSpaans 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and questions

  1. That's a good idea, Teuns! Three coordinators, for air, sea, and land? And one lead man. I'd go for being Air Forces Coordinator. :) Guapovia 08:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Just for reference, Guapovia's edit count. I am adding this to each user, just so you can guage what their experience is, other than just the raw number of edits and months of membership. This helps because it gives us a handle on who has dealt with the various segments of Wikipedia the most. For example, if we want someone who is used to coordinating users, we might look at whether someone has actually done so by contributions to User Talk pages. That said, it is only a number. --Habap 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Here's Guapovia's count with the wonderful new Interiot's Contribution Tree. its clickable! The Minister of War (Peace) 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I'm not sure about having Guapovia as assistant. To me it looks like he'd be far more suited to taking a leading position in a military aviation task force, something his active involvement on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft makes him quite qualified for. Oberiko 14:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirill Lokshin

Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs) • Interested in either position.

I have quite a bit of experience with trying to keep this project organized already, having started many of its procedural aspects (such as the project notice templates). I hope that I can continue to be of some use with this more formal structure.

[edit] Support

  1. I have had some interaction with Kirill Lokshin and he is knowledgable without being condescending, and a nice human being. Both are essentials for this position.old windy bear 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. He's got my vote. Andreas 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. He's certainly earned my vote as well, being the person who has possibly helped me the most with the Second Battle of Kharkov article. I think he would be an awsome person for either position. JonCatalan 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Definitely one of, if not the, most active member of the project. Definitely deserving of such a position. --Wikiacc 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Count on my support. You've got the energy, so just provide direction and we'll line up to help. --Habap 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Obviously :-) SoLando (Talk) 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. No doubt in my mind. --Loopy e 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SUPPORT for nothing less than lead coodinator. A capacity he has shown himself to be infinately qualified for...indeed he invented it. Before Kirill, this project had NO coodinator or coordination at all. Thanks to his tireless efforts it has been greatly expanded and enhanced. What was once a drifting, dying effort is now becoming a very vibrant, organized community.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Good long list of contributions, some edits, lot of info and articles. Been here, done this. Guapovia 22:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Got my vote too --ansbachdragoner 23:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Count me in, awesome writer, researcher, and contributor. Always willing to discuss and lend a hand. Can't think of a better person for the position. – Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yes. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Although I may be bias, Kirill did actually create the project from the two smaller ones, so I see no reason why he shouldn't be the head honcho. Always available, maintains the war portal, knows more about templates than me, but that isn't saying much, & is generally a great guy/girl, although I'm guessing guy.... Spawn Man 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - I'm not exactly sure why we need to vote for tasks that can be accomplished without having to vote for someone, but sure. --Candide, or Optimism 07:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. m:Votes are evil, oh hang on, Support. Leithp 09:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. --Ghirla | talk 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. SupportBlueShirts 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. TeunSpaans 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Being not very active in this project at the moment, my main interest is that the project runs smoothly. I think you would make a good lead coordinator.
  19. Support lead. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Our captain and our banner. Lead. Albrecht 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, without question. I would deinitely like to see him take the position of Lead/Project Cordinator, something he's already been doing quite well. Oberiko 14:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Kirill's always been quite helpful to my personal issues and questions, and he's really done more work than most (myself included) in starting and developing the project. LordAmeth 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Enough said. He is already got the post IMO. Pop open the champagne, Krill :) Idleguy 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Considered and considerate. JimmyTheOne 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and questions

  1. Just for reference, Kirill Lokshin's edit count. --Habap 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Here's Kirill's count with the wonderful new Interiot's Contribution Tree. its clickable! The Minister of War (Peace) 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] oldwindybear

oldwindybear (talk • contribs) • Interested in either position, but probably would be better as assistant.

I have quite a bit of knowledge on military history, some formally, via school, some practically, via the military itself, and tremendous interest in contributing something positive. I have been studying history either formally or informally all my adult life. I would like to see all of our military projects upgraded, and they can be. I believe strongly in this project, but also believe we need more recognition for those users who really do contribute positively, and those who merely vandalize for fun. At any rate, I think I could help on this project, and would like to try. Kirill should be lead, I would like to help him, and believe I could. In thinking about this as the days have passed, I also believe we need to try to relate the battles in a comprehensive scheme as to their effect on the cultures and peoples involved -- for instance, Manzikert is pretty much uniformly regarded as the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire. Why? (of course, the loss of the Anatolian heartland within decades, for one thing, but there are others, many sociological -- the seizure of the throne after the battle from the Emperor who lost it destablized the throne permanently) In other words, we have the capability and skills to relate the military history as part of a greater picture and what role they played macrohistorically, if they did. Obviously, I will not be elected or part of this, but i do hope the team that emerges will consider some of these ideas.

[edit] Support

  1. Very knowledgeable. —Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. TeunSpaans 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and questions

  1. Your presence on this project seems a bit short. I guess that with some more experience, you could do the job with more confidence. TeunSpaans 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm somewhat puzzled by your comment. Oldwindybear has been editing battle-related topics ever since he started editing Wikipedia seven months ago. He was doing MilHist before it began. By contrast, Guapovia, who you did support, has been on Wikipedia for a month - albeit a very active month :-) The Minister of War (Peace) 10:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. I am a little puzzled by that one also. I have been almost exclusively in battle related topics since I became active under this name 7 months ago. I have plenty of confidence, what I don't have obviously is suppport, which is okay, this is a democracy - but anyone, as the Minister has observed, that has seen my edits, knows that I know my military history and source everything extensively. I wish I could help Kirill, I believe my knowledge of military history is pretty well known among those in this project, my work on battle related sites, the Mongol Empire, Tours, began even before this project. I won't get the chance. I accept that, and will just continue to freelance. old windy bear 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I think TeunSpaans's problem was that I stated several specific goals I thought Project MH could achieve, and you had more of a philosophical approach. I believe this is why I received his support. I like the idea of connecting events in the grand scheme of things, though, Old Windy Bear. If we can do that without violating Wikipedia's "No Original Research" directive, I'm all for it! (I can think of several instances in aviation where outcomes of war were decided due to people, places, or fights.) Guapovia 13:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    HI Guapovia You raise an interesting point, certainly, If I am interpreting your interest correctly you are basically restating what cost Billy Mitchell his job in the 1930's. (the american general who argued that air power would dominate the future, while the rest of the american general staff wanted to emphasize battleships and conventional land forces - something the Japanese proved decisively wrong when they sunk the Prince of Wales at Singapore!) I had more in mind linking battles like LePanto Island, where the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, the Papal States, defeated the Turkish fleet, and pretty much decided the fate of who controlled the seas in that era. What I wanted to do was link that to the political and cultural results of LePanto - the rise of Venice as a decisive sea and economic power, the gradual decline of the Ottomans, despite their continued victories on land for another 175 years. I don't see battles, whether air, sea, or land, as existing as events in a cultural/political vacuum. I would like to see us use this project to try to show what effect the battle had, other than who won or lost, and why. LePanto to me is an excellent example because it's results really had incredible economic, political, and cultural impact beyond the defeat of the Turkish Fleet! Certaily I think aviation is important -- but just as it had it's day with WWII, in some ways it is becoming questionable whether air power as we know it can be decisive in the type of conflict now going on in Iraq. One terrorist - or resistance fighter, depending on your political perspective -- with a SAM 7 can knock down a billion dollar Apache in 3 seconds. I applaud your interest in aviation - and obviously people agree with you that issue trumps my thought that we should context our battles as to their affect in space and time on the evolving historical context. That is democracy. I obviously failed to convince folks that my approach would be beneficial and you were able to. We both raised very specific goals, and yours attracted people, mine did not. I accept this, and (I do agree with you in part, as I hope you noticed!) I will continue to freelance, wish you all good luck.old windy bear 14:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I understood your goal, OWB, it's just that putting in stuff like that means it has to already exist somewhere else, on another website or a book. We aren't supposed to push a point-of-view or do original research here. I think it's a good idea, blending in the 'cultural and political' with the battles. But we have to do it in a way that doesn't violate Wikipedia's policies. That was my only point. And no, I don't believe in "air power over all" - I just want to have it fairly represented in Military History. Whether or not air power fades away or not, it had an effect on military history. I just listed it as part of the goals I thought needed addressing. Guapovia 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Guapovia I agree with you unquestionably that we need more on aviation -- especially in WWII, where it played such a pivotal, (and orginally unexpected!) role. You are dead right on that, whether it is now passing or not.old windy bear 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Hi all, I apologize for my error, I obviously mixed things up. The count I referred to was probably that of user:Guapovia. Now I will not withdraw my support for him, as I think it's a good idea to have three coordinators, each of whom concentrates on one of the three arms (air force, navy, and army, though each should be free to take up tasks in other areas, and many battles combine more than ons of these three arms). I suppurt both of you. TeunSpaans 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. TeunSpaans what a nice thing to do, and i thank you sincerely for the kind thought and support.old windy bear 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Just for reference, oldwindybear's edit count.--Habap 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Habap What a neat tool! Thank you for showing me that. I hope to have more by this time next year. I generally try to pick my places where I feel I have expertise, lol. But the edit count is cool, so thanks!old windy bear 15:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    I've always been fascinated by numbers used in performance tracking (I still remember my batting average from my last season of youth baseball, 27 years ago) and was thrilled when I found this. My own edit count shows little project talk for how much project work I've got, but I think most of my project edits have to have been in "articles for deletion", especially far too many on one article I didn't want deleted (it was proper to delete it, though). I usually also stick to what I know, but end up learning about many things I had no idea that I wanted to know about.... --Habap 15:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Hehe, that's not the best of it; the new Interiot's tool gives a much more interesting picture. Here is the one for Oldwindibear, for instance. —Kirill Lokshin 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    You beat me to it ;-) The Minister of War (Peace) 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    --Habap —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok] and the Minister, I think the whole tool is fascinating. In perspective, I was "chatting" via instant messanger the other night with someone I served with in the Paratroopers in 1969. We were remembering the huge field phones that we used to have to carry, (field radios, huge backpack, for those of you old enough to remember!) and comparing them with cell phones of today, or, would either of us have thought we would be around to "talk" via computer! I think that is one reason that this project, wikipedia as a whole, has the potential to be the single greatest repository of human knowledge ever assembled. And when I was growing up, if you had told me I could be "tracked" on such a tool, by folks on the other side of the world I would have thought you had read too much Heinlein! The potentialities for this are virtually limitless, and can be directed positively. old windy bear 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loopy

Loopy (talk • contribs) • Interested in Assistant position only.

Wikipedia is a big place and when I first arrived I set to work, slowly, on some articles and soon found myself, with the aid of another likeminded editor, hugely expanding Wikipedia's coverage of the Anglo-Zulu War. But I got wondering if all editing was as individual as that and did some exploring and came across Wikiprojects, and as corny as it sounds, at the same time discovered this Wikiproject and became enamoured with it. I think this Wikiproject epitomises what all others should be like and what all genres of the encyclopedia should have in place - a community of likeminded editors who can support, complement and complete the knowledge and contributions of others, while improving the field they cover in the encyclopedia. Looking through ten pages of archives in project's talk page one can see quite clearly that it is a brilliant thing in motion - people helping each other, people getting answers to queries, suggestions being made and being acted upon. I would not be too bold in saying that without this Wikiproject, Wikipedia's coverage of military history would be of a far lower standard. Having said that, I also believe it can only get better. This project can only grow from here and go from strength to strength. I don't think it's unrealistic to imagine this project as one of the most prominent and effective ones around in say, a year's time. We have the potential and we have brilliant members. And I want to be part of that, and I'd like to think that if I came to be an Assistant Coordinator it would be to the benefit of the project. Military history is my primary interest on Wikipedia - I dabble in music and entertainment also, but most of my contributions go to battles and wars. I'm experienced, friendly (I don't think I've ever pissed any users off), a glance at my contributions shows I'm dedicated and my interest lies in improving this Wikiproject and helping it to grow.
I just realised I wrote a lot, so if you can't be bothered reading it all just stick with the last sentence =D. And, if I don't get the position please note that I'm not fussed - I won't be offended and I'll still carry on as I am. It's just a position, after all.

[edit] Support

  1. It would be good to have someone with Loopy's experience on the coordination team. --Habap 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Well said, Loopy! Now do I get paid for reading it all? :-) SoLando (Talk) 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. HERE HERE! Loopy clearly belongs in the Loop. I'm glad he's running so I can vote for him.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I told you I'd vote for you. You've got a contributions list as long as my arm. :) Guapovia 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. It'd be great to see Loopy on the coord team. --ansbachdragoner 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, can't think of a better combo than Kirill-Loopy. This project will rock even more! – Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Amazingly dedicated; will make a great coordinator. —Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, sounds like the perfect user to be a coordinater Abduncan4 01:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Candide, or Optimism 07:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. SupportMike McGregor (Can) 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support This member seems to be the most experienced, and for that reason, would make the best leader. Rshu 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support, a tireless worker who is willing to do the less-exciting, but crucially needed tasks such as converting templates and sending out alerts. His coordination abilities are a massive asset. Oberiko 14:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. JimmyTheOne 23:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and questions

  1. Just for reference, Loopy's edit count. --Habap 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miborovsky

Miborovsky (talk • contribs) • Interested in either position, but since the lead position is definitely going to Kirill Lokshin...

First of all, this is the only WikiProject I'm (actively) involved in. I have lots of time, as evidenced by my activity on the Wiki on finals week. I've been involved here mainly on Chinese military stuff, but I do some general housekeeping and misc. items too.

[edit] Support

  1. Gets my vote! --Loopy e 00:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Très bien! —Kirill Lokshin 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Concur. Recent work shows that Miborovsky's willing to do the tedious stuff, too (adding battleboxes). --Habap 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Supprt. BlueShirts 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Assistant.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. You're absolutely one of the ones I'd want to see for this position. It's nice to have a non-Western-focused man on the job. LordAmeth 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Better late than never support. SoLando (Talk) 18:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. An even later than SoL cause I'm older and slower support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Oberiko 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and questions

  1. Just for reference, review Miborovsky's edit count. --Habap 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Here's Miborovsky's count with the wonderful new Interiot's Contribution Tree. its clickable! The Minister of War (Peace) 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice. I didn't expect to have messed around with Nanking Massacre that much, and certainly not Homosexuality in Singapore!!! :) Very useful tool to have around. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Military_history_Coordinators_January_2006_dbe5.html"